Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Rubicon Minerals Corporation Or Message Board

bogfit 15 posts  |  Last Activity: 3 hours ago Member since: May 31, 2002
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Not once! Sold in the $8's and went into real estate. Now back in AUY @ $1.61. Many spots of financial weakness are appearing as economy cools, and so far none of the important issues seem resolved nor even have a plan to resolve. Like Warren's "tide goes out". What I don't understand is the many disgruntled posters who seem to think they are "entitled" to higher gold and stock prices. No one should blame the mgt. for not foreseeing or preventing this bear market, while praise IMO has been earned by the cost-cutting that will serve Yamana investors well when the pendulum swings back again.

    In their bitterness they fail to recognize that Marrone is one of the brightest financial minds ever to come out of the Canadian mine banking industry.

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Gap in the $2.30"s. Will it fill? b.

    by bogfit Feb 11, 2016 1:15 PM
    bogfit bogfit Feb 11, 2016 3:42 PM Flag

    A chart too small to accurately view. But isn't there a gap at 2.45 - 2.55? Not a gap specialist but this seems noteworthy.
    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • since I've doubled my money in AUY over the last month. Yes, boys and girls it does make a difference when you buy in. Some people think that since they bot. in at the wrong time, either due to the company's actions or simply the global markets, that somehow Marrone is responsible. No! You are responsible for your decisions and no one else. So, quit the whining and crying, ti might make you feel better but just tells the world what a loser you are.

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Gap in the $2.30"s. Will it fill? b.

  • Reply to

    BCD vs. F2 - gold content of core drilling

    by sewells831 Oct 16, 2015 7:10 AM
    bogfit bogfit Jan 13, 2016 2:52 PM Flag

    No one is questioning how or on what basis you made your mistake. The research you lied about was a comparison with other coarse gold mines in other regions. You claimed to have done this, and you did not! You lied, and now you try to pretend that the research you lied about was simply a comparison with Red Lake and who knows what numbers and math you used. NO! I'm not gong to go back 5 years to see if you actually used accurate figures, that you took all the necessary considerations into account, and that your comparison with Red Lake has any validity what so ever.

    Why not just let the results of your constant 5 year pumping speak for itself. Can you really deny your steadfast promotion of this stock, and the fact that many people accepting your words lost a lot of money. I am surprised you showed you face here again even if it is to post a lame excuse for your incompetence and dishonesty.

    Still holding?

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Reply to

    Steve Wells is reading this.

    by bogfit Jan 13, 2016 12:57 PM
    bogfit bogfit Jan 13, 2016 1:00 PM Flag

    cont.

    Russell sold two operating mines in Nevada with 750,000 in P&P for a measly $14 million! He actually had agreed to sell those mines BEFORE the annual meeting, but didn't announce the deal until after!

    When I referred to the Apollo debacle and suggested that Rubicon was looking very similar Steve E. Wells (and his pack of jackals) jumped all over me. Now when everything I have been saying over the last four years has come to be realized, i.e. inadequate reserves for UG mining, lack of FS a big problem, secondary deformation at F2 making comparison to Red Lake erroneous. All this has been realized, but Wells lacks the character or integrity to come back on this board and apologize to me personally. When I questioned Rubicon's mgt. decisions Wells said I was "naïve" and "gullible". So isn't it fair to ask just who was wrong all along?

    Lastly I would remind the board that Wells wasn't misled, he was the misleader. He blatantly and falsely claimed his theory of F2 grades were based upon his own personal research that in fact was never performed! This isn't just being ignorant of geology nor being inexperienced with coarse gold deposits, that constituted out and out fabrication of fact and misrepresentation of research results. If any one individual is most responsible for the losses so many have incurred no one is more at fault than Mr. Steve E. Wells (if that's his real name, lol)

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Make no mistake SEWells is still reading this board several times a day - after all he hasn't had any other life for the past 5 years! He just is too humiliated to post anymore. There is a lot of finger pointing going on - blame this on mgt., blame it on that one - but the fact is this was gong to be a difficult mine to develop and THAT was obvious long ago. I don't know how it could be any simpler? The more difficulties a mine has to overcome to put in production the greater the risk of investment. F2 was ALWAYS a HIGH RISK venture. Rubicon was risky speculation, not because of mgt. error or misjudgment, but rather the distribution of the ore. Red flags should (and were for some) flying high as long as the company was unable to produce either P&P reserves or a bankable feasibility study. SEWells told the board that reserves were unnecessary, that just being nearby Red Lake Mine and extrapolating their geological setting was enough - it wasn't, you still need to mine the gold! And that's the part that proved difficult.

    I first took a position in Rubicon in 2012 when looking for a place for my profits from the Newmont TO of Fronteer, but no longer after came the BCSC investigation of George's 13 million ounce "geological potential". This term was new to me and I took it as pure hype (not a good sign), but then when the mgt. imposed a news blackout for over a month, I really started to question the company. But then the company started to report good drills, and the cheerleaders were in full voice. I traded RBY 70 times from 2/8/2011 to 8/20/1212 but never a large amount and didn't make much money.

    But over the years I had drawn a comparison between Rubicon and Apollo Gold under the mismanagement of one David Russell. Just as with Rubicon, Russell was able to draw a half-million dollar salary for several years was he steadily drove Apollo into the ground. Few knew then and fewer remember now that Russell sold two operating mines in Nevada with 750,0

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Reply to

    Rarely is one so clearly vindicated.

    by bogfit Jan 11, 2016 3:47 PM
    bogfit bogfit Jan 12, 2016 4:20 AM Flag

    The question is no different than it was in 2002 - it all depends on the dollar. What's different today is lower market demand and the higher dollar's strength.

    I thought that the lower energy costs would have shown up in retail numbers by now, but they haven't. Why? Are Americans saving more, paying off debt? Or is it that the U.S. can't be the single global economic engine any longer. Another change is the amount of money speculating in emerging stock markets, certainly China's was over bought so their correction is not troubling.

    I see a new normal of slow global growth over the next 5 years until Chinese domestic consumption picks up. With the partisan gridlock in Washington I don't see any major stimulus that would raise GDP beyond about 2%, or the status quo. Remember gold does best in times of stress and fundamental imbalances.

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • "The new drilling and recent trial stoping information has significantly changed the understanding of the variable spatial distribution of the gold mineralization. East-west (mine grid) trending cross-cutting shear structures ("D2 structures") have been interpreted as the main control on the distribution of later stage higher-grade gold mineralization. This is the key factor contributing to the limited continuity of the gold mineralization compared to previous understanding;"

    This latest report confirms both the view of the spatial distribution and the importance of the D2 structures in "later stage mineralization" that I have been arguing for nearly five years on this board. You would think I might get an apology or two, but meanwhle not holding my breath.

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Reply to

    Johnny - still babysitting?

    by bogfit Jan 8, 2016 4:17 PM
    bogfit bogfit Jan 10, 2016 3:09 AM Flag

    Yesterday you posted - "I, and people I trade with, bought ANV, a few weeks before bankruptcy..." I asked for specifics of that trade - you apparently cannot. The lack of response says it all. I don't wish to put words in your mouth, or remarks in your posts you didn't make. However, for many months you promoted the purchase of Rubicon stock with the assumption that the stock would appreciate. You may never have used the term "world class mine", but I don't recall you ever warning about a possible bankruptcy either

    You might not mind gambling with your money - I can assure you I don't care if you do either. But having lived in Nevada all my life I can't say I ever meet a gambler who made at living at it that wasn't on the payroll of some casino.

    "I've only ever traded RBY because of what I see in it's chart..."

    So why not let us all know what chart pattern is indicative of a small mining company going bankrupt? I really would love to find that out.

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Reply to

    Johnny - still babysitting?

    by bogfit Jan 8, 2016 4:17 PM
    bogfit bogfit Jan 9, 2016 11:16 AM Flag

    Wolf,

    Thanks your take on trading and traders as I only began trading gold stocks 14 years ago. If you wish to claim some sort of success on a trade please provide the details, i.e. the date and the price paid and received. Too many on this board reported what they wished they had done instead of the actual reality.

    But what you suggest in your post is not what I considered intelligent trading because I never bought a stock I wasn't willing to hold. What you are talking about playing a BK company, and that isn't stock trading it's called gambling, just like your ex-leader, the pony boy from Carolina. But trust me if you bet red on the roulette table and it comes up red, that doesn't mean you have any special insight into how to beat the game.

    BTW- You were pumping this stock long before I sold out @ $3.30 on 8/20/2012 (see your brokerage account history provides that data quite readily) Of course then you weren't talkin' about playing a bankrupt company, but claimed that F2 was a world class mine that was going to make everyone rich. Guess what it didn't.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • And I thought the old cheerleading section was out of touch with reality, but this latest batch of Rubicon enthusiasts are simply delusional! 30% gap up! LOL Gee that would make RBY sell for $0.12. Why is it that as the list of Rubicon failures continue to lengthen, the pumping on this board becomes more fantastic?

    "... a stock like this will instantly gap and go so you can't just be on the sidelines." Really? Maybe someone can post an example of another gold mining stock with a coarse gold project that hadn't the P&P reserves to make UG mining profitable and was deep in a gold bear market and then suddenly it gapped up. Gapped down we've seen, but up? If someone could just post one example of that ever happening would be sufficient.

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • bogfit bogfit Dec 19, 2015 5:28 PM Flag

    Thanks for the fairytale, but it doesn't comport with reality. Sure he gave references, many others did also, but what set Steve apart is his often repeated claim to have conducted comparative analysis into the developmental history of various coarse gold projects in diverse regions of the world. He claimed have done that, and that this "study" had validated his hypothesis of vein grades at F2. When pressed for the data first he told his questioners to "go do the research themselves". Later he claimed all the data was lost, and he couldn't produce any such study.

    He lied. When he falsely offered research that was NEVER preformed, as PROOF that his hypothesis were correct - that was an OUT RIGHT LIE! No two ways of cutting it! I don't know who was the most influential misleader of more investors in this sorry case, but I do know something about personal ethics and honor.

    He insulted my honor and refused to apologize, and in the end proved himself to be a liar and a fraud . So be it.

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Does anyone beside SEWELLS still believe that one? Where has his cheer section gone? You know the 10 or 12 posters who regularly heaped abuse upon others (including yours truly) for posting concerns and warnings about the difficulties at F2! Where are the proud long term holders, "pioneers" or "gold mania's". How about the fracking geologist who could see nothing wrong with Rubicon?

    Dancing on another grave ain't my style and so I take no pleasure in seeing the demise of Rubicon any more than I enjoyed watching thousands of retail investors lose their capital on a hyped up, pumped margin project over the last few years.

    But unless Stevie can pony up enough backbone to continue to post while his favorite stock goes under, I guess for what it's worth, I will have the last word between us.

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

  • Reply to

    Strange market reaction

    by jazenevd Dec 7, 2015 6:27 PM
    bogfit bogfit Dec 11, 2015 11:27 AM Flag

    Railroads should benefit more.

    b.

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

RBY
0.0310.000(0.00%)Jan 11 4:07 PMEST